I'm not sure what Mitch had in mind there but there's a whole coalition of people and interests and issues that comprise the conservative movement and the conservative perspective. I'm a fiscal conservative as well as a social conservative, so I don't think it's an either/or. I think it's both. And right now the economy is a pressing issue for the nation, and we're all primarily focused on that and jobs and the like, but that's not to say there isn't space to discuss other issues.

That's a lot of words. I feel like I'm still Trapped Under Wreckage. But if I take off my high-heeled shoe and I tap on something hard to attract attention, I think an answer emerges from the debris. It's faint, but my hearing is really sharp. The answer is yes.

201 comments:

Translation: Gov. Pawlenty hasn't done enough commonsense things re: budgeting to get non-conservatives on board, and he needs the people who vote against Abortion All The Time on board to be elected/get votes.

Gov. Daniels has done enough commonsense things that he can ignore those same people. Must suck to be ignored, but what other Republican Governor are they going to vote for?

The social conservatives never, ever let up. Conservatives who say they're all about the economics and oh, they're live and let live with this social issue and that one, don't actually do anything to deal with the so-cos. Ultimately, the fiscal conservatives will always through social issues under the bus and stay in bed with the fundamentalists.

I'm a fiscal conservative as well as a social conservative, so I don't think it's an either/or.

Well think again Pawlenty. It is an either or in the practical sense. A shitty economy affects me personally and millions of others. Two gay men or women getting married effects me not nor millions of others except for those gays who want to tie the knot. Same with abortion. Never plan on having one. Don't care.

There was a time when the GOP was about small government but you can't be small government and tell Bob and Frank they can't get married or that some broad can't get an abortion. These are personal, individual choices and when guys like Pawlenty oppose them than they're no better than liberals who insist I have to set my thermostat at 65 year round to save the friggin polar bears.

Fiscal sanityPare down laws & regs to stay out of people's businessState rights- let governors run their states as they see fitLimit fed govt to its basic core duties Limit tax rates to pay for "must have" programs only

The problem is that social issues are articles of faith for both sides and practicality doesn't enter into those discussions. I personally know peope on both sides of the fence who will look at a candidate and even thought they agree with 99.9% of his/her stands, their vote will hinge solely on abortion.

True conservatism is staying out of the personal choices of the individual. That's that whole freedom and liberty thing we kicked the Brits out for.

A shitty economy affects me personally and millions of others. Two gay men or women getting married effects me not nor millions of others except for those gays who want to tie the knot.

OK, but if we have a truce on social issues doesn't that imply that we all simply let them drop, and therefore everything stays the way it is-- including the inability of your two gay men or two gay women to get married most places?

OK, but if we have a truce on social issues doesn't that imply that we all simply let them drop, and therefore everything stays the way it is-- including the inability of your two gay men or two gay women to get married most places?

Again, doesn't matter to me either way. What I would like to see is the GOP re-embrace conservatism and leave these personal choices up to the individual. You may not like gay marriage but that doesn't mean you (i mean you rhetorically) should weild political power to prevent it either. I hate rap music but that doesn't mean know one else should listen to it. Hell I don't even care if polygamy is legalized. If you're an adult and mentally competent, go for it and be prepared to live with the consequences of the actions.

That emphasis is that our choices have consequences which in turn means don't come running to me for a handout when your personal choices lead to your personal ruin.

What makes Daniels the grown up in this is that he recognizes that its pretty stupid to be arguing over social issues when we're sitting at 10% unemployment and a weak economy. Its called prioritizing.

To accomplish what Daniels says he wants to accomplish, you don't have to have a truce on social issues-- you merely have to avoid spending political capital on them. You play them up when they help you politically, and let them slide when they don't. The GOP has spent most of the past 30 years following this sensible if somewhat cynical course.

Social cons have never let up, but they supported Reagan putting the economy and defense as his first priorities. Not clear that they will trust Daniels as much as RR. My feeling is that they increase the pressure on Repubs they don't trust (e.g. G.H.W.Bush).

Social conservatives and Utopian liberals get it wrong: you cannot legislate morality of any kind. Legislating morality is one of the roads to fascism. Morality is a personal constitutional issue that must be instilled in a person from the earliest years of their life. If you want to protect and promote your version of morality, do so in yourself and your children, don't run to the government to do it for you.

If the centralized government removed its tentacles from society, there would be no need to legislate people's personal lives. The answer to something like gay marriage is not "I support legalizing it" or "I support banning it". The answer is "marriage is a religious and/or romantic personal issue and therefore not in my power, as a government official or politician, to meddle with". If there is to be any governmental meddling in social issues, it should only be from the most local level possible.

If we don't stop the Democrats from legislating their own, repressive version of "morality" (after all, so much of their insane spending and regulation has a moral justification, from environmental matters to health care) it ain't gonna matter whether the GOP is sufficiently socially conservative, or whether Billy Bob is mad that Adam and Steve got married, or whether we say the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance. That's like worrying about the appropriateness of patterned curtains on the Titanic.

What makes Daniels the grown up in this is that he recognizes that its pretty stupid to be arguing over social issues

Unfortunately, all the arguing over social issues which precedes this statement marks you as one of us kids. "Shut up and agree with me" is no more edifying coming from economic conservatives than it is coming from Obama.

Unfortunately, all the arguing over social issues which precedes this statement marks you as one of us kids. "Shut up and agree with me" is no more edifying coming from economic conservatives than it is coming from Obama.

Did I say I agree with gay marriage? Or abortion? No I said it was a personal choice that the goverment should not stand in the way of. There is a difference between allowing something and accepting something. A conservative who votes to allow gay marriage is one who may still find the concept distasteful but does not see a valid legal reason that it should be prohibited.

Again, if the GOP wants to be the party of 'small government' then it needs to stick the the fundamentals of conservative governing. AJ's list at 11:28 is spot on.

I said it yesteday and I'll say it again, why is it that the Left can advance on many fronts, and the Right only one one?

And there are 535 Members of Congress...they all aren't on the Ways and Means Committee, and they don't all have to write a budget.

So whilst Paul Ryan is enacting his Road Map, can't we also advance an amendment to proetect marriage or make sure Roe v. Wade is over-turned?

Daniels and others want it to be either/or and it's "both" to many of us.

And I want the next POTUS to be four-square in support of smaller gov't, pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-traditional marriage, and to promise to nominate more Scalia's and Thomas' to the SCOTUS....

Sure DBQ proposed a nice compromise,yesterday, Federalism on these issues and I'm cool with that...let each state decide abortion, let each state determine marriage (The Federal Amendment simply defines it for Federal taxation and benefit purposes, and allows states to agree or disagree with other states choices on the issue).

But Daniels et al. can't just say, "Hey I'm agnostic on these issues. Sure the Budget is 50% of the Congress' time and effort, but I don't care what they do with the other 50%" Here's a news flash I do...and lots of others do too.

There is a workable half-way point for Social Cons and Fiscal Cons, here, but we Social Cons aren't to keen on being told, "We want your voate, but we don't want to hear from you, after that."

Not going to work, as I said yesterday, with Palin I can have BOTH, why chose Daniels who's only going to give me ONE? And Palin has higher GOP approvals than Daniels, so it's more likely she's the nominee than Mitch...so the "practical" argument has limits.

One last thing for all this Truce and Socially Liberal(Agnostic)/Fiscal COnservative thing...

I believe one study found that the most Pro-Life members of Congress were also the most fiscally conservative...

We keep thinking that there is this mid-ground...when it's IS a choice, Barney Frank OR Tom Coburn...it's not Barney Frank on marriage and Coburn on the budget...IF you want a smaller budget, you're more than likely going to ahve to accept Gay Marraige as an "issue."

And I want the next POTUS to be four-square in support of smaller gov't

I'll say it again, you can't be for smaller government and be opposed to gay marriage on any legal grounds other than gays are icky. Sorry but I'm also for individual freedom and liberty too.

It's not the business of the government whether two consenting adults of the same sex want to get married. Its also not the business of the government whether some women chooses not to give birth. Its also not any of our business either for that matter.

Harry Reid, the most hated person in Nevada, just surged past Sharron Angle, who has disaffected voters with putting her social conservatism over fixing things, jobs, even preserving medicare and social security (she says they don't fit with FREEDOM).

I think that is a good bellweather. People want things fixed, jobs...not people who wish to pass resolutions supporting God in the schools or Hugo Chavez, for that matter.

Religious Right, please take heed. Foisting a Palin or Huckabee on us will cost the country 4 more years of Obama....just as a Religious Right candidate has transformed "dead man walking" Harry Reid into the frontrunner.

Pawlenty has been sounding very right of center these days and I could be wrong but I don't think his record reflects that.

That faint yes that the Professor hears sounds many decibels higher to an engaged and enraged GOP base.

Pawlenty like Giuliani before him is going to have some tough sledding come nomination time. Of course having said that, when push comes to shove on election day, for many it will be anybody but obama.

I'll say it again, you can't be for smaller government and be opposed to gay marriage on any legal grounds other than gays are icky. Sorry but I'm also for individual freedom and liberty too.

Sure you can...I do. And it's Ok to say "gays are icky." I'd say what you do in your own bedroom is YOUR business, but when yo ask me to APPROVE, sorry gotta draw the line there. And marraige IS approval.

It's not the business of the government whether two consenting adults of the same sex want to get married. Its also not the business of the government whether some women chooses not to give birth. Its also not any of our business either for that matter.

Sure it is...the "libertarian" argument on abortion doesn't even hold water as libertarianism...babies can't approve or disapprove of their own birth, THEY'RE NOT CONSENT ADULTS. so it's not just a "womyn's" choice, there is also the baby to consider...and society and the State have a right to speak for that child... So YES we CAN say what a womyn does with her own body.

"It's a personal choice that the government should not stand in the way of" is itself a substantive position-- one on which you should expect to hear disagreement.

Look at it this way: if you expect social conservatives to agree to a "truce" on the grounds that the issues aren't important, you should yourself be content whether the truce is concluded on social-liberal terms or social-conservative terms. It's an unimportant distraction from more serious issues, remember?

Why do I have to vote for Daniels or Badnarik, and have to see babies butchered?

Oh dear lord...they are going to be butchered either way. Nobody is getting rid of abortion anytime soon. And I'm not saying that because I'm for it, because it's liek the ONE thing I'm a social conservative on, but that is not something we should talk about every election because it's been 30 years and it's not going to change. If people care, they should work on changing hearts and minds, rather than the law.

The far left and the far right (which is the fundamentalists) are more similar than the rest of the country. They are social engineers. They don't trust or believe in individual liberty. They want to control and engineer society based on their values and to hell with everyone else. They don't think we're capable of running our own lives.

We tried that, from the right, under George W. - and the country rejected it. George W. was NOT a fiscal conservative.

If you want to live free - you need to allow others the same. And that means that you don't try to control other people' choices with law and social engineering.

It's nothing but hypocrisy, imo, for the far left to bitch about the far right and vice versa when they are both obsessed with imposing their values on everyone esle.

Why on earth should extremes rule over the majority? It doesn't pass the smell test.

True conservatism is staying out of the personal choices of the individual. That's that whole freedom and liberty thing we kicked the Brits out for.

That's true insofar as your personal choices do not impact anyone else (your children, your neighbors, your fellow citizens, the taxpayers). But the "personal choices" that are politically contentious are exactly the ones that injure other people, or force obligations on other people, or restrict other people from freely exercising their own personal choices.

I guess social conservatives then don't deserve the mantle of supporters of individual freedom and liberty.

Under your criteria, Hoosier, the only mantle they don't deserve is "supporters of anarchy."

The Declaration of Independence allows for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; that's a far cry from "'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law."

Joe, your proving the point; all your moral frothing will be meaningless if there is no country left.

Economics IS what matters. Destroy the economy and you set yourself up for fascism, socialism or some other form of tyranny and while you may your way with the right totalitarian government, it won't last. Moreover, it's all about convenience anyway--the moment this or that right becomes inconvenient to those in charge, that right goes away.

This isn't to say that having a good economy precludes tyranny, it doesn't, but having a bad economy all but guarantees it.

Social issues are the whine the Lefties use to justify all their welfare programs. So there's a cause and effect to consider.

to that end, how many of you are sick of the phrase 'social justice'?

Hoosier Daddy said...

OK, but if we have a truce on social issues doesn't that imply that we all simply let them drop, and therefore everything stays the way it is-- including the inability of your two gay men or two gay women to get married most places?

Again, doesn't matter to me either way. What I would like to see is the GOP re-embrace conservatism and leave these personal choices up to the individual.

That's more a Libertarian stand than Conservative. Conservatism has a social as well as an economic component. The Libertarians basically say, "As long as I get mine, ...".

Joe said...

I said it yesteday and I'll say it again, why is it that the Left can advance on many fronts, and the Right only one one?

Because anyone on the Left who deviates from the Master Plan gets what Ernst Rohm and Leon Trotsky got. Dissent may be the highest form of patriotism when protesting the defense of this country, but it isn't tolerated.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It seems that the personal choice of gay marriage or abortion offend your sensibilities which I can appreciate. But if they are sanctioned by the government, you don't lose any individual rights. In fact, other than your sensibilities being offended, it doesn't really effect you one way or the other.

I don't care for social engineering as I don't think its the purpose of the government. For me, telling two consenting adults they can't get married because they're gay is just as bad as telling me I can't set my thermostat to 70 because the planet has a fever or that PETA and vegans insist I can't go hunting because animals are people too.

That's true insofar as your personal choices do not impact anyone else (your children, your neighbors, your fellow citizens, the taxpayers). But the "personal choices" that are politically contentious are exactly the ones that injure other people, or force obligations on other people, or restrict other people from freely exercising their own personal choices.

I don't disagree. I don't see how two gay men marrying injures anyone.

Under your criteria, Hoosier, the only mantle they don't deserve is "supporters of anarchy."

Well that's some leap don't you think? I'm searching for where I advocated a free for all and can't seem to find it. I mean I take it as a given some of the basic laws governing human nature and figure that a clear distinction could be made between the societal impact of gay marriage and say, drunk driving. If we can't make those distinctions then we really shouldn't call ourselves a free country.

IMAO it's been too easy for high-spending politicians to run as good Republicans, busting up budgets, but making a couple speeches against homosexuality (including politicians who are themselves gay), in favor of traditional marriage (while they are carrying on affairs), and in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade (but that's not going to happen, nor do they take any steps to make it happen because they know that they'd lose big).

There ought to be just two Republican litmus tests -- get the deficit under control and find the right balance between over-regulation and under-regulation.

It’s never just about (!Insert Pet Cause Here!!!!Eleventy11111!). As I said before the entire Congress does not write the Budget. You’ll notice THIS Congress seems to have the time to write Healthcare Reform, Card Check, Cap and Trade, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, Financial Reform, and a host of other things, some trivial, some not….So Economics may matter most, it is NOT the ONLY thing that matters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Well then there you go, that’s certainly INARGUABLE, but just a few questions:1) How many gay marriages did the Founders attend?2) How many states allowed for Abortion?3) How about this, how many states supported religion, with tax money and a SPECIFIC religion, with tax money?You suffer from l/Libertarian Disease, you create a libertarian document, where no such instrument existed.

Pawlenty just bloviated himself out of contention for any big national ticket position with that response.

Sounds like he has no sense of priorities, which is all too reminiscent of our current leader, who has vowed to "focus like a laser" on at least four or five of his "highest priorit(ies)" concurrently, on several embarrassing occasions.

Not presidential timber or timbre.

wv: "pruding" -- What Pawlenty hopes there's more time for in America, between discussion of all these financial crisis issues.

Apropos ...I don't disagree. I don't see how two gay men marrying injures anyone.

If you look at the propositions that have lost in CA and ME, it looks like it's the will of the people NOT to acknowledge gay marriage. It goes down in flames every time it's on the ballot. Is it the duty of government to overrule the people and allow such marriages?

You know, this is simply the old "we need to nominate moderates like John McCain" argument all over again. We need to nominate RINOs to get the left-of-center vote.

We all know how such hare-brained big tent schemes have worked in the past -- disaster for Republicans.

Look, the GOP is NEVER going to get the pro-abortion vote. NEVER. So quit with this absurd argument that the GOP will win only if we chuck social conservatives overboard into the sea. It won't. It will only ensure the election of the likes of Barack Obama.

If you think of social issues as a turf war, it's clear that social conservatives are the defenders and social liberals are the aggressors. That is, a few generations ago, gay marriage wasn't even on anybody's radar. Abortion was restricted. Divorce wasn't easy and so forth. For good or ill, it is the social liberals who upset the apple cart and have been pushing and pushing to enact their agenda. The social conservatives have simply been trying to preserve what they grew up with, again for good or ill.

But its hard to say, given this, that social conservatives need to call a truce. They would have loved to call a truce all along. It's the left that keeps pushing and given that, a unilateral truce is just surrender.

I don't disagree. I don't see how two gay men marrying injures anyone.

I don't see the pushback against two gay men being married in a church. The pushback comes against the government recognition of the marriage which puts obligations on companies, federal/state/local government agencies, and taxpayers. Since third parties are being obliged, they want some say in the matter.

'Under your criteria, Hoosier, the only mantle they don't deserve is "supporters of anarchy."'

Well that's some leap don't you think? I'm searching for where I advocated a free for all and can't seem to find it. I mean I take it as a given some of the basic laws governing human nature and figure that a clear distinction could be made between the societal impact of gay marriage and say, drunk driving. If we can't make those distinctions then we really shouldn't call ourselves a free country.

I don't think it's much of a leap at all. I do see that now instead of advocating a free for all, you're advocating that you get to designate what sort of behaviour ought to be regulated. But that just changes things so that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-personal-liberty and is trying to make the country unfree.

I'll repeat the portion of my comment that you chose not to address:

The Declaration of Independence allows for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; that's a far cry from "'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law."

If Mitch really wants GOP candidates to agree to level with the faith filled rubes who have always voted for them since Reagan, but are now somehow to blame for stopping financial recovery, then Mitch ought to first level us and admit his only job is to stop Palin's runaway freight train from outdistancing the Jebusites sudden miraculous roll out of the Connecticut Bush model 3.0 ( habla espanol, push 1 for English ).

Big Mike - "There ought to be just two Republican litmus tests -- get the deficit under control and find the right balance between over-regulation and under-regulation."

Pretty much agree. I'd add a few other things that shouldn't substitute for "pure on abortion" litmus test or other social conservative litmus tests like "leave free trade and Wall Streets innovators" alone!" should be they dropped....but should be policy every Republican runs on.

It won't be enough to be "against that there Obama". What will the opposition be for?

1. Ending tax credits Republican corporatists created for offshoring US jobs.2. Commitment to creating a national energy policy, with no jobs killing carbon taxes until the US has recovered.3. Running as strong on defense - without running around like McCain and Palin did suggesting a range of new excellent "military strikes or involvements" like Iran, sending US troops to Georgia to fight Russians if need be, Rescuing Burma, troops to Somalia and Yemen.4. Jobs, jobs, jobs.5. Get control of the US Borders before any Amnesty discussions get underway.6. Cast candidates as not wanting the Federal government to continue to reach into the lives of every citizen to further regulate and boss them around and dictate what they can and cannot buy.

I try to be. I mean, just to be simplistic about it, we believe that leaving the maximum number of dollars in the possession of those who earned them is an exercise in enlarging freedom. I do this little game sometimes if I’m in a high school classroom. I walk around and ask innocently, ‘Does anyone have a dollar bill?’ – and some kid will produce one and I just stuff it in my pocket and walk on. After the consternation and the giggling stop, I say, ‘What, What?’ Then I go into a little rap and I say, ‘Oh, Jonathan wants his money back – notice that he is a dollar less free than he was a minute ago; if he had that dollar he could decide, he could choose’. Then I talk about how inevitably we have to coerce money out of people to do necessary and important public business. But if we believe in freedom and liberty than we ought to do that only for necessary purposes. Then I go on to talk about competence and the fact that it becomes an equally solemn duty to never misspend a dollar. Maybe that’s not the right response but when I’m asked about governing as a libertarian, I would say that’s one way I do it.

Here's another:

I think so. Our attitude here, I’ve expressed it a thousand times, is we believe in limited government, but within that sphere of things that government does, we believe government should do them as well as possible. We’ve done everything we can think of to implant the accountability that’s not really there. Government is a monopoly and we know how monopolies mistreat their customers and overcharge them because of the absence of competition, which is another major theme that runs through these books: the best regulator is competition.

traditional guy - "Mitch ought to first level us and admit his only job is to stop Palin's runaway freight train from outdistancing the Jebusites sudden miraculous roll out of the Connecticut Bush model 3.0"

Your special favorite bimbo is currently the only major Republican Obama would beat. (I suspect Reverend Huckleberry would too, but he wasn't in the poll).

Polls also show Palin continues to lose Independents and moderate Republicans.

She is damaged goods from quitting too many jobs and inability to string three coherent sentences together. (maybe that was why incoherent McCain picked her - they understood each others confused meanderings better than any "normal people" around them could)

"just a few questions:1) How many gay marriages did the Founders attend?2) How many states allowed for Abortion?3) How about this, how many states supported religion, with tax money and a SPECIFIC religion, with tax money?You suffer from l/Libertarian Disease, you create a libertarian document, where no such instrument existed."

This gets it precisely backwards. These are the proper questions to be asked:

1) How many anti-gay marriage statutes did the Founders legislate?2) How many states (around the time of the Founders, presumably) wrote laws prohibiting Abortion?3) How about this, how many states supported religion, with tax money and a SPECIFIC religion, with tax money other than through property tax waivers?

You suffer from s/Statist Disease, you create a statist document, where no such instrument existed.

Sodomy was ILLEGAL in all colonies….2) How many states (around the time of the Founders, presumably) wrote laws prohibiting Abortion?All 13.3) How about this, how many states supported religion, with tax money and a SPECIFIC religion, with tax money other than through property tax waivers?Almost all colonies supported Christian churches and a few New England Colonies supported SPECIFIC sects.

You suffer from s/Statist Disease, you create a statist document, where no such instrument existed.

No I suffer from having studied a little HISTORY, whereas you have studied…I’m not sure what you studied, but it certainly wasn’t US History. In fact, most colonies regulated businesses, in the quantity and quality of goods, in hours of business, and the like…Taverns were ESPECIALLY regulated….

It seems that some can’t imagine a freer society. For whatever reason they think that people *must* be baby sat. And it seems like they believe that either they will do it or the bad guys will do it :-)For me, it’s not about whose values shall we push – it’s what is the least amount of government we can have.

For example: What policies allow for the greatest freedom of choice for the individual – without ‘picking someone else’s pocket or braking their leg’ (TJ -) and still help the needy without creating dependence?

The far right and the far left each offer a Nanny State. Which do you want a right-wing religious state or a left-wing religious state? And so many of us are screaming – NEITHER. We don’t want a Nanny State at all :-)

We don’t need to be nannied.

I think some people are claiming that they are negatively impacted by the existence of homosexuals :-) And that’s not a good argument. Some other people are just as negatively impacted by the existence of fundamentalists. Those kinds of *impacts* are a choice. You can choose differently and come to peace with the fact that there are people in this world that you don’t like or don’t approve of. That does not justify social engineering.

Peter Beinart, a smart lefty, wonders whether there is an unstated – but real- litmus test in the GOP regarding Christianity. I think that is what the *social* issues revolve around – will the GOP be a legislative arm of Christianity? And in that, I think that Beinart and the rest of us deserve an answer.

"No I suffer from having studied a little HISTORY, whereas you have studied…I’m not sure what you studied, but it certainly wasn’t US History. In fact, most colonies regulated businesses, in the quantity and quality of goods, in hours of business, and the like…Taverns were ESPECIALLY regulated…."

Excellent, then. Bring on a second Obama term and more Reid/Pelosi Congress (oh, the visual that conjures...) and let's keep the regulation-train flowin'!

Hell, they can even call it a "return to the principles of the Founders"!!!

Somehow, that seems ridiculous. But then, I'm just a freedom-loving American that understands the principles that everyone likes to blather on about supposedly undergirding this fine nation's laws.

Joe: The problem with your historical argument is that none of the laws you are talking about were FEDERAL laws. State's have the right to make all kinds of laws, but the Federal gov't is supposed to be limited in scope. And nowhere does the Constitution talk about social legislation as a Federal power.

Joe: The problem with your historical argument is that none of the laws you are talking about were FEDERAL laws. State's have the right to make all kinds of laws, but the Federal gov't is supposed to be limited in scope. And nowhere does the Constitution talk about social legislation as a Federal power.

No it's about the idea that we can't legislate morality and that the Declaration created some kind of libertarian system, when in fact, that is toatlly untrue!

And IF the Founders thougth it to be, true they might have mentioned in in some of the Founding Documents, but they didn't.

This is about Hoosier's belief that individual liberty is to be found int he Declaration, to such a large extent...it's a myth.

BTW Joe, way to conflate state (colonies') laws with the limited rights granted to the federal government.

As a Canadian born and raised over the border but who took and passed AP US History in the year of high school I attended stateside in my first year as a US resident, I have a question for you:

"Study history much, compadre?"

The other point by someone just above, wondering whether the GOP is becoming a species of "Christian Democrat" party (that's small-D democrat, btw) is an interesting question. One has to wonder how much of the resistance to focusing on the narrowly granted federal constitutional scope of government by federal GOP candidates is being driven by the missionary impulse in the more socially conservative Christian denominations. (that's not a value judgment by the way, just an observation and wondering aloud)

Regulation of business is a legitiment function of government. I don't think anybody here said otherwise (though maybe I missed it).

They were jsut as picky and nanny-statish s it related to business as the current lot are....people just like to think that the Colonies were somehow "freer" economically than they were. The idea of laissez faire is a 19th C. concept, not an 18th C., one.

"In fact, most colonies regulated businesses, in the quantity and quality of goods, in hours of business, and the like…Taverns were ESPECIALLY regulated…."

Regulation of business is a legitiment function of government. I don't think anybody here said otherwise (though maybe I missed it).

The desirable level and scope of regulation is rightly debated during campaigns, and I am going to be strongly motivated to vote for the candidate who convinces me she has the good judgement and commitment to tackle the issue.

But Joe, the US Consitution and Bill of Rights IS (collectively) a profoundly libertarian document. Further, the Federalist Papers demonstrate the Founders themselves were on all fours with Hoosier's argument, namely through their proscriptions to devolve control downwards through the states and localities.

This is the essence of the American experiment. If you ever wondered what makes us so different than other nations, the idea that government here is bottom up rather than top-down ranks as seed corn to the crop of America's successes.

@ Joe: I didn't see anyone upthread commenting that we can't legislate morality AT THE STATE LEVEL (though I personally would try to avoid that too). What I did see being argued is that as a potential candidate for FEDERAL office, Pawlenty should stay off the social issue high horse.

Freedom of "expression" was less an issue in the homogeneous society that existed in colonial times than it became as America became the polyglot "melting pot", when the concept of "speech" was broadened to include other forms of expression. Was it overbroadened? Is pole-dancing protected expression? That's the stuff of proper debate at as localized a level as possible. If people don't want a titty-bar in their neighborhood or town, no reason they should be forced to endure one's presence. Just as those who wish to imbibe in such pleasures should be free to travel or move to the cities/towns that allow them.

This isn't radical thinking, unless it's 1775 and you're sitting in London wearing a powdered wig and too much talc and perfume because you haven't showered yet this month.

Many of the Founders were slave holders. That's, thankfully, no longer valid. The Founders did not recognize the natural right of women to vote and be a part of the political process. Thankfully, again, that has been corrected. Obviously, the Founders were wrong on human rights issues.

Many of us want a freer society. we don't want the limitations of the extremes on either side imposed on us. That's not hard to understand.

Calypso what began this was Hoosier quoting the Declaration as the foundation for "individual liberty", when it wasn't...it was a decalration of why people can revolt, but it certainly wasn't some kind of libertarian document...

Abortion is going to be a hot-button national issue so long as it is a national issue.

You want pro-lifers to shut up already on the national level? OK -- then work to overturn Roe. Don't talk about it, and then give a wink and a nod -- do it.

Overturn Roe and return the issue of abortion to the states. THAT is the compromise. Nothing less. That, and only that, will take abortion off of the national stage.

Pro-lifers ain't going away. They may stay home if we repeat once again the Big Tent strategy that succeeded in repeatedly electing guys like Arlen Specter and John Warner and the Chaffee family, to the detriment of everyone, or you can win with them with an enthusiastic social conservative candidate. Don't worry, pro-lifers know about priorities, and they know when to pick their fights, but this truce, i.e. surrender, nonsense will only succeed in Republicans losing and the issue of abortion still being a hot-button national issue.

It can't be avoided. It's time to actually do something about it if you want it to go away.

Adams believed in seditious libel, Jefferson did not. After Jefferson defeated Adams he pushed to repeal the law and compensated anyone who had been prosecuted under it. There's some "founders" history for you.

As to Sarah Palin, she might win 6 states against Obama if unemployment is over 12%. Daniels is the only credible, accomplished Republican who could beat Obama.

His record of cutting budgets while promoting growth and market-based solutions to health care issues is outstanding, especially given the shitty economy.

Sarah Palin is Barack Obama in a skirt: an incompetent narcissist. Except Obama speaks better and comes across as smarter and more knowledgeable than Palin.

But by all means, vote for her and hope she wins the nomination because social issues are just too important to leave up to individuals or state and local governments.

This is the essence of the American experiment. If you ever wondered what makes us so different than other nations, the idea that government here is bottom up rather than top-down ranks as seed corn to the crop of America's successes.

Europeans consider this to be a horrible failure. I.e, you can't trust the rubes. But PHds in Brussels will know what to do for us all.

This thread seems to be suffering under the delusion (induced by the coastal media) that social conservative causes are unpopular.

Gay marriage has been trounced by the voters EVERYWHERE it has been tested.

Abortion, especially the anything goes variety pushed by today's Democrat party, is not popular. no one is demanding banning it, just letting the states decide, which if it were actually reported in the press, would be very popular.

Immigration is also a huge looser for the Democrats.

So where is Pawlenty wrong? The thread high-jackers here and their ilk are just trying to change the subject so Republicans don't win even bigger come November.

I sit here amused at all here who say: "You can't legislate morality." Of course you can. What does everyone think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was all about? Today in the "Deep South" one sees both black and white office co-workers breezily chatting together over lunch whereas over 40 years ago the same white co-worker wouldn't even recognize the right of the blacks to walk on the same side of the street. So to say that social Republicans should unilaterally surrender those things they feel strongly about is to implicitly admit that the cultural street only runs one way. And while those who say that when the economic house is on fire it is no time to discuss the future color of replacement wallpaper in the kitchen are largely correct (I use the same argument over immigration issues when calling for secure borders, only I use the water-main break/color of replacement tile/carpet analogy) in that one must sharply order one's priorities in an emergency situation; I also say that surely we can walk and chew gum at the same time--that's why the committee system in Congress was established.

Social OR fiscal priorities? No. "Both and." There is no reason why the GOP should nominate entrants in only one-half the lists in the political jousts--leaving those victories to be claimed by the left by default.

I'm referring to a discussion we had before the election. You refused to vote for McCain. I argued hold your nose and do it, or Obama would get elected. You came back and said we'd be better off having Obama elected than McCain, because Obama would really put us in the crapper and people would recoil in horror and we'd be better off in the long run whereas McCain would have us continue to bumble along at a level not bad enough to effect a reaction. I said that was a pretty risky strategy.

So, we're in the crapper. You got your wish. {Oh, there, I did it again. Just kidding. Just kidding.}

@ Virgil/GMay: Of course we can legislate, and have legislated, national morality standards. (All, IMO, in contravention to the principles of the Constitution.) But I think a Federal politician who said "let states decide social issues for themselves" would be a welcome breath of fresh air at this point.

Nothing the government does is going to help the economy short of a constitutional amendment banning government interference in the economy, which would be incredibly helpful.

The government stands beside the economy and culls the herd as it runs by, trying not to kill us all. Every dollar it spends has to be taken from someone who uses capital so much more efficiently that it can support them both...to a point.

The primary problem in the economy right now is uncertainty. People with money and ideas to spur growth just don't trust that this government won't pass some 2000 page crap bill tomorrow that will entirely screw their business plan. They are just acting rationally, which is to wait for this war on free enterprise to pass.

Nobody thinks the clerks, aides and special interests writing these bills are thinking about how to grow the economy. If they were, all they would need was an eraser.

Imagine a typical Democratic congressional aide involved in writing these bills, recently out of school and proud to be part of this brave new liberal power in D.C. Does someone with and appreciation for free markets, entrepreneurship and capitalism come to mind? I think someone wanting to take a mulligan on the modern Greek model of fiscal management is close to the truth.

Flexo;Look, the GOP is NEVER going to get the pro-abortion vote. NEVER. So quit with this absurd argument that the GOP will win only if we chuck social conservatives overboard into the sea. It won't. It will only ensure the election of the likes of Barack Obama.

i think the issue is less pro-abortion vote to Republicans but fiscal conservative/socially liberal folks voting democratic.

It's important to remember there is a good chunk of people out there who think the worst of both worlds is fiscal liberalism(or at least profligacy+social conservatism. (That's why, for example, back in more innocent times, when it was hard to imagine Obama could win, Huckabee was such an alarming prospect for people of this type.) They worry about the old bait&switch, that they'll end up with a fiscal profligate after having already sucked it up on the other issues. For them, that means it's a lose-lose (again). Under that scenario, Joe, you're NOT the biggest loser, assuming progress is made on your side's version of statist (national) social control.

I also think you underestimate the number of people out there who fall into the category to which I refer. Are you so very sure it's smaller than the fiscal conservative+social conservative category? (We're talking in terms of voters who insist on both--obviously, for example, Hoosier is more of a social conservative by preference, but it's not a make-or-break political thing for him as far as federal elections go, as I think he's made clear.) I'm not so sure about that.

And don't go all "you must be an Obama supporter" on me. I didn't vote for him. Wild horses couldn't get me to vote for him. However, while in the end I took a deep breath, sucked it up and pulled the handle for McCain/Palin despite having previously decided to write in a vote at the top of the ticket, given the right (wrong!) candidate in 2012, writing in or leaving a blanket at the top off the ballot is always a possibility. And I'm MUCH MORE LIKELY to suck it up on the social conservative issues than many, many, many independents are--epecially those who've been betrayed previously and have no interest in that lose-lose thing again.

Can't stand Romney, by the way. I'd vote for him over Obama, but that's not saying much.

He could have stood up for social freedom. He could have stood up for federalism on social issues. He can stood up for national unity-- you know, treating Americans like individuals with possibly differing values but with a common desire to do what is right.

But he didn't.

What more can the people of America do to tell Republicans that they are out of step?

We elected Obama.

We gave control of the Congress to Democrats.

All of that because, primarily, conservatives acted like nanny-state assholes and thought that they could make one-size-fits-all rules for the poor slob proles who aren't as enlightened as they are.

But still Republicans like Pawlenty want to continue the Social War. Fine! We'll just continue to vote for Obama and his Democrat friends then. Maybe someday they'll get the message.

I read what Joe said, quoted below, and it got me to thinking. I eventually came up with a few questions of my own:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Well then there you go, that’s certainly INARGUABLE, but just a few questions:1) How many gay marriages did the Founders attend?2) How many states allowed for Abortion?3) How about this, how many states supported religion, with tax money and a SPECIFIC religion, with tax money?You suffer from l/Libertarian Disease, you create a libertarian document, where no such instrument existed.

1. How many Facebook friends did The Founders (TM) accept?

2. How many states provided driver's licenses?

3. Did Rastafarians and Hindus lose the right to demand a religiously neutral government?

You suffer from c/Conservatarian Disease, you create a document blind to the future, because, I suppose, no such component of time was ever envisioned. If a right involves an innovation that didn't exist in 1790, we're supposed to assume that right should also not be sanctioned by TEH CONSZTITUTIONZ.

i think the issue is less pro-abortion vote to Republicans but fiscal conservative/socially liberal folks voting democratic.

So they’re basically single issue voters, too…Abortion is more important than fiscal conservatism…ASSUMING that this demographic exists in any large numbers. I’m betting a vast majority of socially liberal people are also SOCIALLY Liberal….

The fact that Obama still has popularity greater than 20% suggests to me that we're doomed.

I don’t believe Nixon fell too much below or even below 30%, dood/doodette…get a grip. Very few people can fall that far in popularity….

So, who do you think would be the best presidential candidate to succeed Obama in 2016?

Of course, because no one who’s socially Conservative can win, even though Reagan did, and just because Socially Liberal positions are losing traction, it MUST mean that only a libertarian can win POTUS in 2012. Thank you Pauline, I mean Ms Kael…I’m sure no one you know would vote for Palin…That way I get smaller government AND fewer dead babies…Now if you can’t make that choice, instead you’ll chose the dead babies over smaller government, THAT makes YOU the “single issue” candidate, not me.

But still Republicans like Pawlenty want to continue the Social War. Fine! We'll just continue to vote for Obama and his Democrat friends then. Maybe someday they'll get the message.

Ah, UNLIKE Pelosi et al. “It’s not about diabetes, it’s about diet.” No, no Social War being waged by the Left…so what you’re saying, is like Reader you’re a SOCIAL LIBERAL, first and foremost…You’re a Liberaltarian, emphasis on the LIBERAL…But, no doubt, as I see you write, it’s MY fault that Pelosi is spending the country into oblivion, but hey at least she’s OK with abortion and gays and lesbians. She’s not one of those “Socially Conservative” no doubt, wait for, RELIGIOUS People…

Bottom-Line: the truce is dead, the guy who proposed it ran away from it inside two days! It’s based on the odd idea that Socially Liberal, but Fiscally Conservative folks are a significant voter demographic. Those people are called “l/Libertarians.” Big “L” libertarians amass about .3% of the popular vote….the Green and Socialist Parties get more votes. Little “l” libertarians are about 20% of the populace…and they include ME. So the variance amongst “l”bertarians is very broad, to include people who would NEVER actually vote Libertarian, and who vote either “D” or “R” fairly constantly. In short they already have a voting home, and the demographic Soc Lib/Fiscal Con is very, very small…..The Keys to the Kingdom involve a broad coalition of Social and Fiscal Conservatives…you Fiscal Cons, gonna have to support us Social Cons or you’ll just get NOTHING. It’s your call….we can all play together, but if its low taxes, small government AND dead babies, or nothing..Well then be prepared to choose NOTHING.

Thanks Virgil, I've been scratching my head as well this over the nonsensical claim that you can't legislate morality.

GMay reminds his fellow statists that if the state tells you what is right and wrong, then you are supposed to believe it!

No questioning the government! In GMay's perverse understanding, democracy works backwards/in reverse. Instead of the attitudes of the people informing the actions of the government, the actions of the government are supposed to be used to change or inform the attitudes of the people.

Which, I guess, is why the Tea Party Peoples feel so demoralized. (...assuming they ever had much in the way of morals in the first place...)

You suffer from c/Conservatarian Disease, you create a document blind to the future, because, I suppose, no such component of time was ever envisioned. If a right involves an innovation that didn't exist in 1790, we're supposed to assume that right should also not be sanctioned by TEH CONSZTITUTIONZ.

Oh yes it's a LIVING DOCUMENT, I forgot...so we can get rid of the "Right to Privacy" any time, right Ritmo as "we evolve"...no I didn't think so.

Oh, I see. Joe says that because something was accepted as illegal at the time of the founding, that's TEH CONZSTITUTIONZ way of saying it's ok to pretend that it could be made illegal forever and ever until the end of time. The founders wanted to make sure that society would never change and that attitudes would always reflect everything they thought about life and the world at the time. Moral considerations were to be frozen at that point and never revisited, no matter how much knowledge progressed.

The only way to mandate a static interpretation of the constitution is to pretend that the times in which it is interpreted never change. Which is bunk. History is not destiny. Someone needs to give Joe the memo.

You're completely wrong in your sureness, Joe. I'd run out of fingers before I got out of the close family and into the friends. Speaking for myself (who, by the way, is more socially libertarian than liberal, with conservative leanings especially w/r/t abortion), I don't find Palin particularly alarming from a social conservatism standpoint. I think a lot of people THINK she'd propose radical stuff in that area, but you know what? I don't personally think so.---In any case, here's the thing: However many seats the Republicans win back this fall, there won't be enough to deal with the abortion issue at the federal government level between now and 2012. Frankly, I don't think the time will likely be be ripe for that in 2012. (Please don't confuse my OPINION about that with what I do or do not believe about abortion.) So why do a stand on that hill, right now, running up to 2010/2012 and perhaps sacrific getting support on fiscal/small government issues? I mean, I honestly don't get that in the window of time which we're discussing and given even the most optimistic expectation about how the elections go?

so we can get rid of the "Right to Privacy" any time, right Ritmo as "we evolve"...no I didn't think so.

Yeah. You think right but for precisely the wrong reason. The right to privacy became more extensive as society became less communal in nature (thanks in part to the way the founders laid out the foundations of government), and as technologies developed to enhance privacy and security. So, in essence, democracy and basic progress makes us more considerate of privacy - both in a practical sense and in THE LAWS that reflect it.

The founders could not prevent society from changing, no matter how much you rely on this idea to give your argument any merit whatsoever. The only way to even attempt to mandate what a society should look like is to outlaw technology and innovation, which the patent system prevented.

Just ask China and GOOGLE.

Come on. Get with the real world for a change. Or else go and purchase an island off the coast of Virginia in which to recreate your long-ago utopia.

3) How about this, how many states supported religion, with tax money and a SPECIFIC religion, with tax money other than through property tax waivers?Almost all colonies supported Christian churches and a few New England Colonies supported SPECIFIC sects.

Thank The Creator TM for William Penn, then - someone from whom the fascist Puritans of New England and 20th-century (21st-century?) Virginians alike could all stand to learn a lesson.

So Ritmo when society "evolves" we can get rid of the Right to Privacy, correct?

The Founders accepted change, they incorporated several methods to incorporate it within the Constitution...

All you gotta do is AMEND the Constitution to incorporate it. But that's too hard...it's easier when it's a living document, right?

We're talking about interpretation, something that biblical inerrantists/fundamentalists and constitutional originalists/strict constructionists alike don't seem to comprehend. Language changes. Innovations happen. Ideas, however, need to be interpreted in a matter as true to their original meaning as possible. This might become challenging in a society or clique that, like the USSR or communist China, believes it can control social attitudes and mold them to the situation most favorable to the official philosophy. But tough cookies.

I'm far from the only one who interprets that, just because the internet isn't mentioned in the constitution, the government doesn't have a right to say we can't access it. Ditto gay marriage. Ditto abortion. Times change. Ideas don't have to (if you can figure out how to stay true to them rather than to substitute them with concepts that rely on fixed time points and particular societal constructions). I guess this poses a more vexing challenge to some than to others. Oh well.

I don't think that's going to happen in the next 2-4 so years, but I personally wouldn't have a problem with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and putting the issue back into the states and the legislative process.

I think Roe v. Wade was mistakenly decided. It was overreach. And it cut short the debate in a way that has made it fester and cast a sore over national politic for decades. I think it should have been worked through the legislative process. (Now, I also happen to think that, by this point in time, it would have been legal in most--though not all--states, with more restrictions, of one type and/or another in most states where it was legal. But that's a different issue.)

But I will say that the sanctity of one's home and family is important to me, and to an important degree that does require respect for some kind of right to privacy. I would argue that respect for a right to privacy and sovereignty over one's own family and life is necessary for, say, maintaining the right to homeschool, for one example that is perhaps not so hot-button as those we've been discussing.

the sanctity of one's home is covered under the 4th amendment, IIRC...and home-schooling is NOT a Right to Privacy issue...no one as ever litigated on it. Home Schooling has come under attack, and no one seems to use that argument...

A Right to Privacy (RTP), actually Conscience was considered in the BoR and rejected...

Joe--I'm happy to bow to your knowledge on your point with regard to "initial caps" Right to Privacy, in the legal sense as it's evolved. I'm not a lawyer and not only have never claimed to be, I've many times said I'm not and that I don't pretend to be. I'm talking in more of a lower case right to privacy (and sovereignty) sense, and ******depending on where one lives*******, I beg to differ with you as to how intrusive the process of "legally" homeschooling can be, whether it involves giving up some privacy and sovereignty.

Anyway, that's a different tangent, so let's not go there here. I'll just say that--speaking from my libertarian streak--I think states can be too intrusive on individual liberties, too, but that needs to be fought out there (as it has been, and is being, fought out on that level).

Now folks like you could have fought to have the statute over-turned, but that would have involved taking on Holy Mother Church, IIRC.

And it would have meant then re-fighting that fight in all other staes, where contraception was outlawed....

Just easier to get 5 SCOTUS Justices to say how society has evolved, eh?

No need to say how society evolved. I can see that you're already hiding behind the power of the Church as a litigant.

Now, yesterday Synova and the others got around to talking about the role of Christianity, and particularly Protestantism, in creating the cultural milieu that became protective of the rights of individuals against a state. And while I don't agree with them fully, just allow me to say that one of those tyrannical states in question just might be represented by Vatican City today, and the Holy Roman Empire before that.

If you want to talk about the rights as conceived by societies that you prefer to think of as having remained static from the founding all the way through today, a Catholic society wouldn't be one of them. It was Protestants who founded America, and created the Anglo-American enlightenment before that, probably not coincidentally either.

Go thank them before standing behind the power of a litigant to pretend that the founders would be happy to have the government going about the business of attending to one's body and its functions. Just because rights for women and medicine did not exist in 1790 doesn't mean the founders would have been offended at the advances in our rights those developments allowed for.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Apparently Joe doesn't consider someone's body a part of their person.

That's a pretty creepy thought. What else does the government have a right to do to our bodies, Joe?

Not even conservatives argue in favor of upholding a right for an individual to possess nuclear weaponry. So you're zealous of our rights. That's nice. I'm happy for you. You also share this society whose laws uphold and interpret those rights with hundreds of millions of other people who may or (likely) may not agree with you. You'd best learn how to have a civil and intelligent discussion with them if you want your opinion to be respected.

"the full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints."

Ritmo...You are imitating a bully again. Alex doesn't know that you are just having fun with him. It is like watching a pro racquetball player place shots to a beginner. Nice game. And what's with the Drunk W photo collection? That is just plain mean.

Alex is free to play, but when he uses intemperate speech, even fighting words(?) like "enemy agent" and uses language like "douche", (which, BTW, I never understood as an insult. It almost sounds like the person using it has a problem with a nice, clean vagina), then I take it personally.

He talks about a lack of civility being his biggest complaint. I hardly see how labeling someone traitorous (despite their agreement with him!) on account of their willingness to see the founding contracts of our government as applicable to modern society is a way to demonstrate civility.

I don't mind if he doesn't understand the conversation Joe and I were having. But when he interrupts it simply to use the choice ugly words that his frustrated mind is reduced to, then yeah. I don't mind batting him down.

Maybe he's a nice guy. If that's the case then he can bother trying to understand what I'm saying before calling me a traitor and a vagina cleaner. (Which isn't fair. Just because the vaginas I consort with are cleaner than the ones he's known, how is that supposed to make me look bad? It's unfair and nonsensical.)

And the W. photos I used on account of Alex's avatar. I mean, I'm sure W.'s a fun guy in private, (and in public!), and yeah, voters said they'd like to have a drink with him. But how W. became a model for adulation in a president is beyond me.

I never understood Bush hatred. I even had severe reservations about seeing what one could find agreeable about John Kerry. I didn't vote in 2004 because of that tension. But Bush made his bed, he has to lie down in it. His alcoholism is his own business, until he demonstrated it to the world at the Olympics. At that point, come on. It's public fodder. Such a good old frat boy shouldn't mind.

Bush could have united the country. He squandered both that and the opportunity to avoid a Great Recession. That's my biggest quibble with him. If he wanted to pull so hard to the right that the middle collapsed, that's his business. Voters had their say in 2006 and 2008. You seem to think they'll have their say once again in 2010 with Obama. Maybe they will. That's theirs to contend with.

Bush wasn't a model president. A nice, affable, but smirking if cocky guy? Ok. Regime change in Iraq? Some pros and some cons. But advertising one's MBA credentials and giving a full eight years of one's presidency to inflating a bubble economy with the popping disaster? Unforgiveably incompetent. Maybe that was an indictment of Reagonomics and maybe just his lackadaisical approach and Rove's interest group opportunism. Either way, given Alex's flaws, associating his persona with W.'s image doesn't behoove him. If he talks like an ignorant punk, I'll link him to the drunk.

Those who pointed out that a truce on social issues is surrender are right.

Those (reader?) who pointed out that people feel bitten by social cons who present themselves as fiscal cons and turn out not to be fiscally conservative at all are right.

Those that pointed out that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is probably not a social conservative either is also right... which means that the person who wanted both fiscal and social conservatism also got bit when the candidate turned out not to be fiscally conservative.

With the exception of someone like Huckabee who is probably actually socially conservative and is most certainly fiscally (and judiciously) liberal, and I think that there actually are a lot of people with this combination of preferences, most conservatives at least attempt to present themselves as conservative in both areas.

I don't think we need a truce on social issues... I think we need assurance on financial issues.

I don't remember saying that about McCain. Googling around a bit I see that I said I'd vote for Obama if McCain picked Huckabee as his veep, and that I had planned to not bother voting. That sounds about right. I ended up voting because the polling place was in the garage of the house 100 yards up the street from me. :)

Look, the GOP is NEVER going to get the pro-abortion vote. NEVER. So quit with this absurd argument that the GOP will win only if we chuck social conservatives overboard into the sea.

You seem to think America is divided into "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" camps. The reality is that a plurality (and possibly even a majority) of Americans really don't care all that much. Take me, for example -- I'm pro-choice, but I can't think of a single election where a politician's position on abortion has affected my vote. Firstly, because I don't care all that much, and secondly because like any sensible person I realize that Roe vs Wade is here to stay.

What we are suggesting isn't that the Republican Party try to lure the NARAL crowd, but that the Republican Party actually try embracing a political belief other than "ZOMG ABORTION MUST GO". The truth is that the position of the GOP, since Reagan left office, has been to compromise on taxes, on spending, on entitlements, on foreign policy -- on anything and *everything* except this quixotic campaign to outlaw abortion again.

Take a hint from your forty years of failure. Try giving some OTHER conservative political belief its day in court again.

The truth is that the position of the GOP, since Reagan left office, has been to compromise on taxes, on spending, on entitlements, on foreign policy -- on anything and *everything* except this quixotic campaign to outlaw abortion again.

...and the obsession over gays and gay marriage while, bizarrely, giving a pass, in comparison--by any reasonable, logical, intellectually honest and, yes, fair standard--to the laxity and failures of the marriages among even the "strongly religious."

I mean, really, how many hetero divorces ARE there for every openly gay, committed couple? Forget about gay marriage, for the moment, and answer me that.

Ritmo, are you under the illusion that Bush was a small government fiscal conservative? (Pulled so far right?)

In what reality?

I don't know or care what he was. In any reality, he was an incompetent puppet. Just because he wasn't as blind or as pure an ideologue as you'd have liked him to be, doesn't mean that I can't indict him on any other basis. Neither does it mean your prescription, that he wasn't pure enough to your cause, is an intelligent or realistic one.

David Frum writes a highly illuminating take on how your movement ruptured on the shoals of its own internal incoherence. It makes a lot of sense. It shows you how the conservative appeals to a coherent order are just a facade - and why everyone else ended up seeing how shallow the conservative either became or actually, always was:

I have a different take on what went wrong in the Rove years, published in 2007 in the NY Times.

As a political strategist, Karl Rove offered a brilliant answer to the wrong question. The question he answered so successfully was a political one: How could Republicans win elections after Bill Clinton steered the Democrats to the center?

The question he unfortunately ignored was a policy question: What does the nation need — and how can conservatives achieve it?

Mr. Rove answered his chosen question by courting carefully selected constituencies with poll-tested promises: tax cuts for traditional conservatives; the No Child Left Behind law for suburban moderates; prescription drugs for anxious seniors; open immigration for Hispanics; faith-based programs for evangelicals and Catholics.

These programs often contradicted each other. How do you cut taxes and also create a big new prescription drug benefit? If the schools are failing to educate the nation’s poor, how does it make sense to expand that population by opening the door to even more low-wage immigration?

Instead of seeking solutions to national problems, “compassionate conservatism” started with slogans and went searching for problems to justify them.

They got the interest-group part down, and it came at the expense of a coherent governing philosophy.

And remember, this was the best strategist the GOP could come up with.

Enough with the bullshit. 30 years of preaching responsibility while always being the party to fuck it up and explode deficits and debts is way too much. You guys are done. Maybe a little backlash later in the year, but the credibility of everything you stand for is crumbled after this. 30 years of this failed mistake of a strategy! THIRTY YEARS!!!! AND YOUR RESPONSE IS TO SAY WE JUST DIDN'T DO IT FAITHFULLY ENOUGH, PLEASE GIVE US ANOTHER CHANCE? THIS TIME WITH MEANING!!!

NO ONE BELIEVES YOU. YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY. YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT RAGE AT YOURSELVES MISDIRECTED ONTO OTHERS AND FANTASIES ABOUT A TIME THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

Because they WILL NOT in all good conscience vote for someone who advocates for continuing the status quo of (1) abortion being a national issue, rather then returning it to the states and (2) more importantly, the ocean of blood from the slaughter of innocents.

If you don't want their votes, fine, continue being an ass and encourage the rest of the party to do the same.

I didn't say pro-lifers are obtuse, and I don't think that. I said you were being obtuse about one particular point that was being made (and nor do you have to agree with the point, it's just annoying when people won't acknowledge what the point is, wrong or no).

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I think. I won't be involved in the primary process (because I'm not registered in the Democratic or Republican parties) anyway, whereas presumably you will.

It seems you missed where I said I didn't like the nationalization of the abortion issue. But if you want to call me names, go right ahead. That doesn't matter, either.

The hint I take from the GOP's 40 years of failure is that they held the White House for 26 of them. I'd be pretty happy to see them carry that record of failure into the future.

I apologize for being unclear. I was saying that the pro-life movement had failed for 40 years, not that the GOP had. If your goal is merely to elect people with an "R" after their name than maybe you're on the right path.

But of those 26 years, 18 of them were bad for non-social "conservative" issues, and can only be judged successful because the Democrats would have been worse. Nixon, Ford, and the Bushes moved has closer to socialism and left us with a nation that was less free than it had been when they entered office.

Yes. The problem is you don't actually provide them. Your position can be summarized as "if he's a social conservative we'll vote for him, if not than fuck you".

Because they WILL NOT in all good conscience vote for [blah blah blah]

If you want to sell out every other principle you claim to believe in because you cannot accept reality, that's your business. But every politician you've ever voted for has continued the status quo on abortion. Abortion is going to remain legal, and it is going to remain a federal issue because there ARE no non-federal issues in America anymore. Neither party believes in federalism, and only one Supreme Court justice does.

If you don't want their votes, fine, continue being an ass and encourage the rest of the party to do the same.

Or what? You'll stop voting for economic conservatives who aren't socially conservative, too? You ALREADY don't vote for them. Obama wouldn't have won if you morons hadn't alienated everyone in America who isn't a social conservative. Take a lesson from that before you lose in 2012, too.

What didn't come up during the president's first press conference was how one section of the convoluted legislation--it's approximately 800 pages total--is intended to radically reshape the nation's medical system by having the government establish computerized medical records that would follow each American from birth to death.

(This seems like a good time to point out that none of the House Republicans and only 3 Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill which establishes electronic access by the government to all of your medical records. The Democrats supported it overwhelmingly.)

I was saying that the pro-life movement had failed for 40 years, not that the GOP had. If your goal is merely to elect people with an "R" after their name than maybe you're on the right path.

Well, I did assume that the social conservatives are being asked to give up the pursuit of their social-conservative ends in the interest of some other goal that they also care about. The suggestion that they can best pursue their social-conservative ends by unilaterally giving up on them is a bit goofier than I'm used to seeing from you.

having the government establish computerized medical records that would follow each American from birth to death.

Where does it say that the government would have access to these records? You totally misconstrue the purpose of the legislation.

Revenant deserves better, but apropos of the ASSHAT AC, I don't doubt that the Tea Party propaganda is spreading the kind of innuendo that would allow someone to confuse the continuity of a personal EHR (of incalculable value to physicians treating that person) with something that the government should have any reason to access.

Talk about a lack of credibility. When AC's fantasies of Democrats collide with his inability to read, we get someone who interprets the sharing of information between doctors as the sharing of that information with the govnernment.

FAIL. Exist stage right, retard.

How are medical records "seized" or "searched" by a law against abortion?

By prosecuting "violators" of said law. How else are you going to prove that someone intervened in another's pregnancy without establishing the status of the uterus prior to an after the alleged act?

But that's just the most intrusive evidence. Even using the act of a medical abortion as evidence in and of itself requires access to records that are privileged from courts. Unless your laws force women to resort to performing abortions themselves without medical assistance - a truly sick scenario and one only a certain certain lack of awareness would disregard anticipating and humanely accounting for.

But again, at least you aren't as messed up in your approach as that ASSHAT AC.

Well, I did assume that the social conservatives are being asked to give up the pursuit of their social-conservative ends in the interest of some other goal that they also care about.

That would be the point of a coalition, yes. If social conservatives are never willing to support social liberals or moderates who are otherwise conservative, what good are they as allies? It would be better to try recruiting DLC types from the Democrats instead.

"How are medical records "seized" or "searched" by a law against abortion?"

By prosecuting "violators" of said law.

But searching medical records pursuant to a criminal prosecution isn't even slightly unconstitutional -- it is a classic example of what the founders considered a reasonable search or seizure (provided a warrant was obtained by the authorities, of course).

If you want to cite the 4th amendment as an example of something violated by anti-abortion laws, you need to demonstrate that it involves a search or seizure that is unreasonable under common law.

Even using the act of a medical abortion as evidence in and of itself requires access to records that are privileged from courts.

Medical records aren't privileged from the courts if they are germane to a civil or criminal proceeding.

Rather than exit the stage gracefully after being exposed a lying buffoon, once again MUL doubles down by spraying new volleys of feces into the thread in the hopes that his stench will drive everyone away.